Congress bowed to demands from Telangana separatists, which began in the 1950s. The region that could become India’s 29th state, is deprived of resources by the state and suffers from high poverty levels and unemployment, a lack of proper infrastructure and irrigation facilities, according to advocates for a separate Telangana state.

But there are groups that oppose the move because it could risk the integrity of India and encourage other movements in search of statehood. Hundreds of paramilitary soldiers were deployed in the state to prevent violence ahead of the Congress party’s meeting to decide on the issue Tuesday.

The decision to give the go-ahead for the state of Telangana is an emotive one and prompted much debate among India’s columnists and The Wall Street Journal’s readers.

Here is a round-up of they said about the move, which must be approved by the Andhra Pradesh state legislature, endorsed by India’s cabinet, and approved by both houses of Parliament.

In a piece on livemint.com, Liz Mathew wrote that “the campaign for Telangana has been a purely political one,” unlike statehood demands from other regions like Gorkhaland in West Bengal, which are based on language or culture. For her, “the culture, tradition, language and terrain of Telangana, Andhra and Rayalaseema regions are similar.”

In the piece, published Tuesday, Ms. Matthew said that although Congress has accepted the demand for a separate state, it finds itself in a “tough spot” as a result. “If it follows up by introducing a Bill in Parliament to grant statehood to Telangana, there will definitely be some repercussions in the regions that oppose it,” she wrote.

The formation of the new state would also change electoral mathematics of the area. “If a separate state is formed, the Congress may gain two electoral advantages—the party may have an edge in the state and Lok Sabha [India’s lower house of Parliament] elections from the region and the Telangana Rashtra Samiti, [the party that] has championed the cause of Telangana, may merge with the Congress,” she said.

A piece in the Economic Times headlined “Rayala Telangana is a crude attempt to maintain Reddy dominance,” argued that carving out of a new state from Andhra Pradesh was done without “understanding the ground reality.”

Kingshuk Nag, a resident editor with The Times of India newspaper in Hyderabad, wrote in the piece that he has problems with the inclusion of some southern districts of Andhra Pradesh known as “Rayalaseema,” in the new state.

The author also detects political motivation behind the move. It is an attempt to maintain the dominance of the Reddys, a caste group, in Andhra Pradesh Mr. Nag wrote.

In Telangana, the Reddys would have had been “left nowhere” so to dominate politically they needed to be within a state in which they had a strong vote bank, wrote Mr. Nag quoting a senior state-level Reddy politician.

Another motive is to “stymie future demand for a Rayalaseema state,” Mr. Nag wrote.

“The common man in Rayalaseema sees this as a blow to his identity,” Mr. Nag wrote in the piece published Monday, adding that an officer from the Indian Police Service in Rayalaseema resigned protesting this move.

People from Telangana aren’t too keen on the merger with Rayalaseema either, according to Mr. Nag’s piece. He argued that Rayalaseema is less developed than parts of Telangana and is much like the state’s Wild West with a culture of violence, bombs and assassinations. “That is why the TRS, which was in the vanguard of the movement has rejected the Rayala Telangana idea, as has the BJP,” Mr. Nag added.

But for New Delhi, “dividing the 42 Lok Sabha seats in Andhra into two equal parts, each with 21 seats, is the idea of equity,” Mr. Nag concluded.

In a piece in The Hindu, R. Uma Maheshwari, a journalist based in Hyderabad, asked “why there is such a sense of sanctity about the idea of India” as it stands today?

In the piece headlined “A State That Must Fulfill a Higher Purpose,” Ms. Maheshwari wrote that Hyderabad-based theatre, music and other platforms, overplayed the dominant Telugu language and culture in the state, marginalizing the Telangana language, culture, and even its agrarian systems.

She said Telangana had been likened in the past to the wife of an exploitative husband.

“Why when a wife wishes for a divorce, should she not be given it? Why force her to live with an exploitative husband?” the author wrote.

She also questioned whether the creation of Telangana would stall the creation of the Polavaram dam in Telangana, which for Ms. Maheshwari “is obviously heavily tilted towards provision of water for industry and development in the coastal corridor of Andhra Pradesh,” outside of Telangana’s borders.

For Ms. Maheshwari, the crucial question is whether the proposed new state will show the way for a pluralistic region, instead of one dominated by one caste and class-based polity. “Will the new Telangana state be about re-imagining a State far more inclusive than Andhra Pradesh state has been, in development of rural areas outside Hyderabad? Will it give the Dalits and tribal communities far more representation in constructing this new State?” Ms. Maheshwari asks.

The piece published Wednesday said the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh “can change the fortunes of a large state of 85 million people.” It says that Andhra Pradesh has been one of India’s fastest growing state economies.

“It is essential to ensure that a break-up would spur and not whittle down these achievements,” the newspaper said.

The piece argued that the additional funds for building social and physical infrastructure would burden the central government, and add to its fiscal deficit. “Business in coastal Andhra Pradesh will lose easy access to the large market in Hyderabad, while those in Telangana will be unable to easily access the large ports and tap the advantage of the huge gas reserves in Godavari basin,” the piece added.

But it might be easier to administer smaller states, even though this this hasn’t been true for Jharkhand, which was carved out from Bihar, or for Uttarakhand formed out of Uttar Pradesh, according to the piece.

The editorial also points out that because Congress has approved the formation of one more state, there will be political repercussions in other regions where groups are lobbying for statehood. “The most important political repercussions will be in other states where regional aspirants have laid new claims for statehood for Gorkhaland,Bodoland, Vidharbha, Poorvanchal, Vindhya Pradesh and so on,” the newspaper said.

A Wall Street Journal reader who identified himself as Koti Ravi Kiran Chalsani, wrote that the “formation of Telangana is good for all the stakeholders.” But Mr. Chalsani said a few politicians were misusing this issue.

“Either out of individual immaturity or on the directions of the Congress party, a few Congress MPs from non-Telanagana region of Andhra Pradesh have stoked the fire of animosity and frittered away the advantage of a negotiation and decent exit,” he wrote.

For another reader, Jayanth, the decision brings hope that Naxalism, or Maoist insurgency, in the area will decrease with the creation of a new state, and that people from the region will be better represented.

“The division is a positive way forward. It will put an end to a long pending stalemate situation and pave way for development of all the three regions,” another reader Ravi wrote. The reader added that the two states sharing Hyderabad as a capital for 10 years is a good idea, as it will give enough time for other hubs to develop in both the states.

But reader saxenaRajnish disagreed, writing that the creation of a new state would “touch the fibre” of India as a nation.

Another reader Guru called it a “very very bad decision for the people of Andhra Pradesh.”

“Telangana is at par on all economic indicators with the rest of the state. Andhra Pradesh state was forged based on the common language Telugu and that too after much struggle,” he wrote, adding that the split is “just because of politics.”

Correction: A previous version of this post misspelled Liz Mathew’s last name as Matthew. We apologize for the mistake.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.